[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 44 (Wednesday, April 20, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 20, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                                 BOSNIA

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the brutal assault on the 65,000 citizens of 
the Bosnian city of Gorazde continues today. The hospital was hit once 
again, as well as an apartment and buildings which house humanitarian 
workers and refugees. In fact, it is my understanding that 10 patients 
in the hospital were killed. In addition, thousands of Bosnians remain 
without shelter vulnerable to Serb snipers and artillery shells. 
Meanwhile the Bosnian Serbs, in blatant violation of the February NATO 
ultimatum, stormed an arms depot in Sarajevo and seized antiaircraft 
guns from U.N. peacekeepers who were guarding the site. The weapons 
were reportedly returned this morning.
  Among the casualties of continued Serbian defiance and aggression in 
Bosnia, are the credibility of the United Nations, NATO, and finally, 
the United States. The Bosnian Serbs are challenging the resolve of the 
international community, as well as that of the United States. And so 
far, they have been successful.
  The Bosnian Serbs' defiant confrontation should come as no surprise. 
The pinprick strikes executed by NATO in response to a U.N. request for 
close air support in Gorazde on the 10th and 11th, did not demonstrate 
toughness, rather timidity--timidity in the face of a third-rate 
military led by thugs. The extremely limited nature of the air 
operation in Gorazde--which reflects the United Nations militarily 
minimalist approach--was, in effect, an invitation to the Bosnian Serbs 
to test the United Nations and NATO further.
  And so, last weekend, while pledging peace in the pale, Bosnian Serbs 
began their thrust into Gorazde. But, the United Nations bluffed and 
waited to respond until it was too late. When, in the course of 
carrying out a request from the U.N. commander for close air support, a 
NATO plane was shot down--NATO failed to retaliate or respond in any 
way. Meanwhile, amidst the confusion and hesitation of last weekend, 
U.S. leadership could not be found. It was absent.
  It is not too late to take measures to halt the slaughter of 
Gorazde's citizens; it is not too late to take measures to protect the 
other U.N. declared safe havens; it is not too late to allow the 
Bosnians to defend themselves by lifting the unjust, illegal arms 
embargo--unilaterally, if our allies are unwilling to go along.
  Although I am discouraged by reports of the desperate situation in 
Gorazde, I am encouraged by the news that the President has forwarded 
various options to NATO for a decision. I hope that the President will 
resume the leadership role he assumed in February and then subsequently 
abandoned. Yesterday's Washington Post editorial was right on the mark 
when it stated that the President had positioned himself as, ``The pawn 
of a self-driven international machine.'' Sending proposals to NATO is 
not enough. Since the war in Bosnia began there have been plenty of 
options, but little will to pursue those that involved the use of 
force. The President's leadership is essential to persuading our allies 
that tough action must be taken to protect U.N. declared safe havens--
in which hundreds of thousands of Bosnians are essentially trapped--and 
to restore NATO's credibility, which has been seriously damaged.
  Mr. President, U.S. leadership is needed to lift the arms embargo 
against the Bosnians, as well. For 2 years, the Bosnians have suffered 
widespread death and destruction because they have been unable to 
adequately defend themselves--all because of an arms embargo that was 
placed on Yugoslavia--a country that no longer exists. There is no more 
Yugoslavia.
  It is still imposed on Bosnia, an independent nation. It is a member 
of the United Nations. We do not even give them the right to defend 
themselves. We, in effect, are siding with the Serbs by insisting that 
we continue the arms embargo on Bosnia.
  The brave forces defending Gorazde had manpower and morale, but could 
not stop the tanks and mortars with small arms.
  I would remind the administration that the Congress is on record in 
favor of the lifting the arms embargo. The Senate overwhelmingly 
adopted an amendment I sponsored which called for an immediate and 
unilateral lifting of the arms embargo. Yesterday the House-Senate 
conference on the State Department bill adopted the Dole amendment. It 
is high time that the Clinton administration begin listening to the 
views of the Congress on this issue--which are strong and clear--rather 
than just listening to U.N. bureaucrats, like Yasushi Akashi or the 
British and French--who always have the option of withdrawing their 
troops if the embargo is lifted.
  This embargo, unlike the embargoes against Iraq and Libya, is illegal 
and unjust. I would like to bring attention to an op-ed in today's New 
York Times, by Jeane Kirkpatrick--who was our Ambassador to the United 
Nations during the Reagan administration--and by Morton Abramowitz--who 
held a number of senior positions in the State Department and is 
President of the Carnegie endowment. This article makes the legal and 
moral case for immediately and unilaterally lifting the arms embargo. I 
ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Apr. 20, 1994]

                            Lift the Embargo

           (By Jeane J. Kirkpatrick and Morton I. Abramowitz)

       Washington.--Just last month, the United States presided at 
     the creation of a new Bosnian Federation. Today, we are 
     presiding at its destruction. Our lack of resolve and loss of 
     credibility make us accomplices to a Serbian conquest, not 
     architects of a better settlement. The peace process begun 
     with hope in Washington is about to go to hell in Gorazde.
       In the face of fresh Serbian outrages against civilians and 
     United Nations peacekeepers, President Clinton has steered a 
     neutral course among the ``warring parties.'' The results are 
     morally, politically and militarily indefensible, with 
     disastrous consequences not just for Bosnia but for a stable, 
     democratic Europe and the viability of NATO and the U.N. 
     (Yesterday there were indications that he was reconsidering 
     this course.)
       When confronted with the complexities of the war in Bosnia 
     and brazen Serbian violence, the U.S. has simply retreated. 
     It pursues negotiations at any price rather than creating the 
     conditions for a workable peace agreement. Incredibly, we 
     maintain the crippling arms embargo against Bosnia even as we 
     talk of easing the trade embargo against Yugoslavia. 
     Everybody but the Serbs has fallen hostage to the U.S. peace 
     process, because we didn't back it with enough force to 
     convince the Serbs that more war gives them more pain than 
     gain.
       For two years, Bosnia has appealed for means to defend 
     itself. But instead, we gave it unenforced U.N. resolutions, 
     unchecked genocide, impotent mediators, lectures on 
     realpolitik, unsafe ``safe havens,'' peacekeepers who can 
     barely protect themselves, and now an unconsummated marriage 
     of force and diplomacy.
       Let us drop the pretense that we can do better, or at least 
     that we will. If we are unwilling to give the Bosnian Serbs 
     (and Belgrade) an ultimatum to withdraw from their sieges or 
     endure punishing air bombardment, then NATO and the U.N. 
     should get out of the way and give the Bosnians the arms to 
     fight for their own country and their own lives.
       Mr. Clinton, who has halfheartedly supported lifting the 
     arms embargo, recently said it was not clear under 
     international law whether it could be ended unilaterally. 
     It can be. The embargo is inherently illegal and invalid 
     with respect to Bosnia.
       The embargo was originally imposed on all of the former 
     Yugoslavia in 1991. But Bosnia is now a U.N. member in its 
     own right, fully entitled to defend itself against aggression 
     under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter.
       Neither Bosnia nor anyone else is bound by an embargo that 
     contravenes this fundamental precept of international law. 
     Belgrade certainly has no compunctions about arming the 
     Bosnian Serbs in violation of the embargo. The right to self-
     defense cannot be superseded by any U.N. resolution unless 
     the Security Council itself undertakes to insure 
     international peace and order, a task it has utterly failed 
     to fulfill in Bosnia.
       The embargo is not just illegal. It has protected the 
     Serbs' advantage in heavy weapons. It has enabled the Serbs 
     to conquer 70 percent of sovereign Bosnian territory and 
     drive two million people from their homes. And it flies in 
     the face of U.N. resolutions authorizing ``all necessary 
     means'' to insure delivery of humanitarian relief and protect 
     safe havens.
       If the embargo cannot be removed by the Security Council 
     because of Russia's veto, it must be removed by individual 
     nations, beginning with the United States. Our European 
     allies may balk, but in the end they need to worry more about 
     our deserting them than we need to worry about their 
     deserting us. Also misplaced are fears that unilaterally 
     lifting the arms embargo for Bosnia would lead nations to 
     abrogate the embargoes against Serbia or Iraq. The cases are 
     not analogous. Belgrade and Baghdad are proven aggressors. 
     Their self-defense is not an issue.
       A U.S. move to lift the embargo and encourage other 
     countries to do the same would be welcomed by an overwhelming 
     majority in the U.N. Indeed, a majority has gone on record 
     against its validity. And now that Russia's diplomacy has 
     failed with the Serbs, it would save Moscow the added 
     embarrassment of a veto.
       Granted, a phased withdrawal of U.N. forces under U.S. air 
     cover and a steady arming of the Bosnians could make matters 
     worse before they get better. But that is a price the 
     Bosnians are willing to pay, and we should be no less 
     willing. It would initially lead to more killing, but the 
     killing has been going on for two years and almost all the 
     dead are innocent Muslims. It would put U.N. forces and 
     humanitarian workers in jeopardy. But they are already in the 
     Serbian cross hairs. Their alternative is to keep standing 
     by, tabulating the carnage and treating the casualties, while 
     CNN records it all in living color.
       Humanitarian aid from the West would still be necessary, 
     but the new Bosnian-Croatian Federation would bear the brunt 
     of insuring the delivery of relief. The armed Bosnian forces 
     might suffer some early reversals, but the federation will 
     make it easier for us to deliver needed weapons.
       Bosnia should be given the chance to work out a better 
     solution than acquiescing to its own destruction. The Bosnian 
     Army has will, discipline and manpower. If we lift the arms 
     embargo now, we give the Bosnians a chance to do more than go 
     down fighting. We given them a lease on life and a basis on 
     which to build a viable peace--a peace that they, not we, 
     will have the means and the duty to keep.

  Mr. DOLE. The criticisms of the manner in which the United Nations 
has operated in Bosnia are justified. The U.N. protection forces seem 
to have done anything but protection. Time and time again, General Rose 
has stated that the United Nations is not in Bosnia ``to win a war.'' 
That is true, but neither are U.N. forces in Bosnia to ensure that the 
Bosnian Serbs win the war.
  That seems to be the strategy. It seems to be the pattern. Whether it 
is intentional or unintentional, that is precisely what is happening.
  The United Nations has failed to enforce U.N. Security Council 
resolutions, the United Nations has cowered and hesitated in the face 
of Serbian defiance and threats, and finally the United Nations 
presence has created an obstacle to the lifting of the arms embargo 
against the Bosnians.
  The flaws of the United Nations and UNPROFOR, the United Nations 
Protection Forces--I do not know why they have the ``pro'' in there 
because that has been no protection--however, do not exonerate the 
weakness of the United States and the absence of a consistent United 
States policy toward Bosnia. The administration cannot escape blame for 
its pretense of helplessness, for overreliance on the diplomatic 
initiatives of the Europeans and the Russians, and for asserting 
neutrality in the face of blatant Serbian Aggression. All of these 
failings contributed to the success of Karadzic and Mladic's strategy 
of conquest and ethnic cleansing.
  There is still time for the administration to define a policy toward 
Bosnia which places the tremendous influence of United States diplomacy 
and substantial military strength of NATO on the side of the Bosnians--
who are the victims of the bloodiest aggression in Europe since the 
Second World War. If the President acts decisively and with urgency in 
the coming hours, there is still hope of stopping the carnage in 
Gorazde. NATO is not in need of the means to act, it is in need of a 
leader. And it is time for leadership.

                          ____________________